Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 14:08:29 PM EDT

( - promoted by Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno)

Perhaps Elizabeth Warren doesn't even realize it, but her position and policies will have a largely detrimental effect on women. Sure, she sounds like she is all hyped up to go to Washington to make 'women' her number one agenda, but it simply isn't true.

Ya see, once again, Elizabeth Warren being an elitist Harvard Professor has a bunch of 'theories' that she wants to put to use, but time has proven they are painfully wrong.

To begin, let's look at her treatment of women. News reports are littered with stories of the group of Cherokee women that came to speak with Elizabeth Warren over her assertions that she is a Cherokee Indian. Whether you believe the claim or not, there is no doubt that Elizabeth Warren REFUSED to meet them and REFUSED to even speak on the telephone with them. They had traveled hundreds and hundreds of miles to simply get clarification about an issue important to them - and Elizabeth Warren wouldn't even give them the time of day. Is that really how women deserve to be treated?

Now come the issues. Elizabeth Warren wants very badly to put the hammer down on the banking industry. We hear it every time she opens her mouth. She is a self-professed expert on banking, yet she fails to see that her own policies would greatly impinge the nature of how banks do business. Banks would be hurt badly, and guess who works in banks most often? Yup, women! Women tend to gravitate to banks for employment. Take a look at these statistics:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2011, women made up the following percentages of these industries: (note, these do not factor position level) 63.3% of banking and related activities.
72.3% of savings institutions, including credit unions.

Elizabeth Warren's personal attacks on the banking and saving institutions would put women out of work. That is a FACT! Yet, Warren thinks that championing the cause to attack banks will somehow help women - go figure!

How about her position on immigrant matters? Well, Elizabeth Warren wants to open doors for illegal immigration. She claims on her own website that she wants to create a path for 'undocumented workers' or as we call them illegal imigrants to get citizenship. There are times when this might be prudent, but not when the unemployment rate is sky-high and disproportionately affecting....women! Yup, those very illegal immigrants that Warren wants so badly to allow here and to participate in the system will put US citizens out of work - disproportionately women citizens. Of course those illegal immigrants that get amnesty will certainly look forward to getting healthcare paid for by the federal government. Economists will tell you that allowing illegal immigrants onto our current system will drive up costs and make getting an appointment harder to get. Guess who this effects most? Yup - women! And single women with small children especially!

And how about her 'housing' policy? That is an easy one. Elizabeth Warren wants to tighten control of mortgage lenders and banks in how they give loans. In other words, no more lending to people with difficult financial histories. This is actually a good policy, but one that adversely effects women. By forcing banks to lend less, and borrowers to be more careful, it slows the number of people entering the 'ownership' real estate market from the 'rental market'. Guess who this effects most? Yup - women!

All of Elizabeth Warren's policies and ideas adversely effect women - plain and simple. She can yell and scream all she wants about how she is their savior, but in truth she is making it harder for women to hold jobs, get mortgages, find a reasonably priced apartment, and afford healthcare they so badly need. Elizabeth Warren has simply made a bucket list of all the things she wants to give away without asking what the effects will be down the line. This is bad leadership. In fact, it is an absense of leadership.

Elizabeth Warren can make all the false claims she wants about Scott Brown, but we know what Scott Brown will do. He is a known element. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, is the big risk in all of this. She has a bunch of wildly idealistic theories that are either untested or already proven wrong. Yet, she wants to march off to Washington and implement them full tilt.

Women beware! Do not believe for one second that just because Elizabeth Warren is a women that she will default to the better choice of protecting women. Women need jobs, and women need health care, and women need a good economy. They don't need some hellbent 'tinkerer' with a bunch of law school theories to go and start jiggering with the process. If Elizabeth Warren had any legislative experience we might want to give her a try, but she has nothing. She has never spent a single day as an elected official ANYWHERE!

Women who know the issues will vote for Scott Brown. Thinking women will vote for Scott Brown.

into daily life disproportionately costs or serves some particular demographic. So tell me how Elizabeth Warren's plan to regulate and monitor the banking industry (which IS what she wants to do and has done with CFPB) will not effect the industry which is 3/4 women? How will it NOT cost women jobs? I think that is the real question....

Ed Markey is now the official 'cheapest' man on earth. 1.5 percent to charity while the average American gave 3 times as much...

From one of her commercials:
1. A vote for Scott Brown would give the Senate a Republican majority! Pretty cool idea,I think.
2. A one issue Supreme court jusice has no reason being on the bench! Good vote Scott. Correction: Great vote Scott!
I love her commercials.

I wouldn't say that I love her commercials ... but I do find that they make me tad less homicidal then her robo-calls and bulk mails.
If I have to hear one more of those messages from JEN with those lame jeopardy questions I will be tempted to show JEN what jeopardy actually is.
Do they even have a clue who they are calling with that crap or do they pick our numbers out of a hat just to p*/** us off?